Section 84(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) requires only some evidence indicating through legitimate reasoning a reasonable possibility that an admission was influenced by proscribed conduct; it does not require proof as a fact that the admission was so influenced. The word 'influence' in s 84(1) imposes a low threshold of causal connection — it is not necessary that the proscribed conduct be the operative or effective cause of the admission. In defamation, where an imputation uses the plural 'claims', the defendant must establish more than one false claim in different interviews to prove substantial truth; repetition of the same false claim does not suffice. Statements made during coercive interrogation may not constitute 'claims' within the meaning of an imputation that connotes voluntary public assertions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 26 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 26 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.